We can all name a serial killer who's an obvious choice. OK, say I spot you that one. Then who? Who else goes in that circle with the serial killer?

It's worse if the victim is very young or very old, right? But it's also worse if the victim was law enforcement, or a father on whom a family depended. So it's worse if the victim was either vulnerable or not.

It's worse if the person suffered and it's worse if it was an execution-style bullet to the head.

It's worse if it was for money or jealousy and it's worse if there was no reason at all.

It's worse if the killer was old because he should have matured by now, and it's worse if he's young because he's already so hopelessly corrupted.

It's worse if he was on a drug-crazed rampage, and it's worse if he exercised stone-cold deliberation.

It's worse if there's no explanation and it's worse if there is something like mental illness, because the explanation usually makes him an ongoing danger.

Who does that leave? Maybe that's the better question: Who does not deserve the death penalty?